The Instigator
Kleptin
Pro (for)
Winning
27 Points
The Contender
patsox834
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Pick your own debate 2!

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/29/2009 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,967 times Debate No: 10598
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (23)
Votes (6)

 

Kleptin

Pro

1. Submit at least 4 resolutions of at least 3 different categories (see the forum). Include your position for each resolution.

2. In R2, I will respond with my choice.

If I am PRO, I will respond with only my choice. My opponent will then use his R2 to acknowledge my choice and invite me to begin. Debating will begin with me in R3 and end with my opponent in R5.

If I am CON, I will respond with only my choice and invite my opponent to begin. Debating will begin with my opponent in R2 and will end in R5. My opponent will not post in his last round and will instead thank the audience and myself for the debate.

BEGIN!
patsox834

Con

1: Manny Ramirez Has Had a Better Career as an Individual Player in Major League Baseball Than Jason Bay (sports.)

Manny Ramirez: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Jason Bay: http://en.wikipedia.org...

By "better," I mean "more valuable," by which I mean Ramirez contributed more to his teams over his career, which I'll show using statistical evidence, which will show Ramrez's ability to produce offensively and defensively, and his durability (playing time) is superior to Bay's.

2: Frank Zappa is a Better Musician Than Lars Fredrikson (entertainment.)

Frank Zappa: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Lars Fredrikson: http://en.wikipedia.org...

I think this is more self-explanatory than the last one -- I mean that Zappa is better than Fredrikson when it comes to composing music.

3: Peyton Manning Has Had a Better Career as an Individual Player in the National Football League Than Tom Brady (sports.)

Peyton Manning: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Tom Brady: http://en.wikipedia.org...

By "better," I mean "more valuable," by which I mean Manning contributed more to his teams over his career, which I'll show using statistical evidence, which will show Manning's ability to "produce" in combination with playing time is superior Brady's. The wording is a little odd, but it's the same concept as I used in the first topic, so yeah.

4: iamadragon Deserved to Win His Debate with mongeese Regarding the Nature of PEDs in MLB (miscellaneous.)

http://www.debate.org...

I'd be "pro" for all of them.
Debate Round No. 1
Kleptin

Pro

I will argue against the fourth resolution. I invite my opponent to begin his argument.
patsox834

Con

In essence, the arguments used by mongeese rarely addressed the issue at hand. A lot of the crap he spewed in that debate was over the supposed "morality" of using "performance enhancing drugs," even though such arguments were completely unfounded, absurd, and nonsensical. mongeese was essentially attacking a position iamadragon never claimed to hold -- whether it's moral or immoral to recorded the statistics of those who broke the rules on par with those who didn't just isn't at all relevant to how closely the statistics indicate how those players performed. iamadragon said nothing about morality; he was arguing over statistical legitimacy. How math has a place in morality...I'm not sure.

mongeese also 1: essentially claimed the "resolution" to be wrong; 2: made an argument involving workouts.

His first argument is meaningless, since simply going "but you're wrong!" isn't even really an argument. Some support was needed, and really, not just any support, like editing a wiki page with fallacious information, and then citing it -- when you make a claim, the onus is on you to give something relatively concrete to show the rationality of your position. mongeese never even went as far as backing up that position with anything, though.

His second one was rebutted easily:

iamadragon: "No–the increased muscle mass is largely located in the 'thorax, neck, shoulders and upper arm.'"

mongeese: "Largely"? That means that increased muscle mass is also located elsewhere, such as the core-abs."

iamadragon: "If 99% of the increase is in the not-important-to-baseball upper body, and 1% of the increase is elsewhere, then it's still largely in the upper body. The benefit to muscles important in baseball is insignificant.

Second, even if it is located elsewhere, you cannot definitively single out the core as the elsewhere. There are still many other muscle groups besides those I named which aren't important to baseball which could be benefited by PEDs, just less so than the upper body."

mongeese: "You're the one who is claiming that it doesn't help the core-abs. The burden of proof is on you. It has an effect on core-abs. You're the one who's making up statistics."

Well, it seems mongeese ignored this: <"Steroids, however, have a much more pronounced effect on the upper body than the lower body, and the upper body is actually quite irrelevant in creating bat speed or arm speed. [6]">

The [6] iamadragon was referring to is this site -- http://steroids-and-baseball.com.... So, uh, no...he didn't make anything up. mongeese was simply asking iamadragon to prove something he had already shown and cited in his opening argument.

So really, mongeese had nothing. He tried to argue over the morality of steroids when it wasn't applicable to the argument, went "you're wrong!" a few times, and challenged iamadragon to cite something he already cited.
Debate Round No. 2
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for starting this debate. If possible, I would like to request that the SOURCES points be allocated to the debater who made the better argument, since this debate is a critique of another debate and as such, does not require any additional sources. Is this OK with my opponent?

I'd like to give a short intro. This debate is about whether or not IAAD (Iamadragon) deserved to win his debate against MG (Mongeese) on steroids and MLB statistics.

Let us take a look at the resolution for that debate:

Resolved: The statistics of those Major League Baseball players who, in the late 1990s until 2004, otherwise considered the height of the "Steroid Era" by MLB fan, were known users of PEDs or who were almost certainly using PEDs, should still be held as legitimate in assessing those players' talent relative to other MLB players.

Next, a quick summary of each round:

R1P: Questioning effects of steroids in boosting baseball stats, Questioning the imbalancing of baseball stats.
R1C: Steroid use shows intent of moral evil
R2P: But the statistics are legitimate.
R2C: But the statistics represent moral evil.
R3P: But the statistics are legitimate.
R3C: But the statistics represent moral evil.

What we have here is not a case of MG completely ignoring IAAD's argument, or misinterpreting anything. This is a case of two debaters reading the resolution in a different way.

When people are debating a resolution in which something should or should not be done, it must be defined within a particular context.

IAAD is arguing under the context that the scores should be held legitimate because comparing players to players would not be affected. His focal value is on the legitimacy of the statistics.

MG is arguing under the context that the scores should NOT be held as legitimate because there are moral implications for cheaters not being punished, even if the cheating is confined to a game. He argues that the moral implications extend beyond baseball. His focal value is on how this act of legitimizing the statistics would be a moral evil.

As you can see, both IAAD and MG were talking past each other the entire debate. Neither side really addressed the fact that they were, in essence, arguing two different but valid and reasonable interpretations of the same resolution. Both sides expressed confusion and frustration over the fact that the other was focusing on something they believed to be irrelevant, but by the end of the debate, neither IAAD nor MG knew why.

Note the comment section of the debate. The RFD left by ToastofDestiny shows that he has a strong position and understood MG's argument. He read the resolution the same way MG did. MG's arguments were not irrelevant. It is just that both debaters read the resolution a different way.

Both debaters made good points, but they were arguing different resolutions. This does not reflect bad conduct because both IAAD and MG had interpretations that were valid. No semantics arguments, no underhanded tricks. Just mutual confusion.

As it stands, IAAD did not deserve the win. As Instigator and Proponent, he bore the burden of proof. He set forth a resolution and made arguments. MG offered his arguments against the resolution. The proper course of action for IAAD would be to identify the misreading and to correct MG as to what the resolution is. He did not demonstrate that he understood this, he simply assumed that MG's point was irrelevant and continued arguing when in reality, MG's interpretation of the resolution is correct. IAAD continued arguing without addressing the fact that the resolution was being negated by his refusal to do anything but ignore MG's points.

MG actually attempted to invalidate IAAD's notions that steroids do not increase baseball statistics and the notion of a level playing field. At the end of the debate, MG was right in his closing statements. IAAD ended up doing nothing but ignoring/rebutting MG's arguments while having his own points whittled down to uncertainty.

I would say that given all this, MG actually won the debate, albeit marginally. However, it would be more safe to say that it would actually be a tie.

It is easy to see that my opponent simply was unable to see how this debate was not a clear and legitimate win, because he had a bias for IAAD (note the comments). Everything my opponent brought up about the irrelevancy of the immorality arguments shows this. Those points can be thrown out since it is clear that my opponent is reading the resolution the way IAAD did and thus, is blinded to the fact that an alternate and valid interpretation existed. My opponent's second half dealt with rebuttals to MG's points. Even if they are wrong, a debate is decided based on info the debaters bring up, not my opponent. As such, my opponent's entire introductory argument can be thrown out. He currently has no case.

I look forward to my opponent's response. Thank you.
patsox834

Con

<"As you can see, both IAAD and MG were talking past each other the entire debate. Neither side really addressed the fact that they were, in essence, arguing two different but valid and reasonable interpretations of the same resolution.">

I can't see how mongeese's interpretation is "valid," since iamadragon had an objective meaning in mind when he came up with that resolution. It just so happens that mongeese's as wrong.

<"Both sides expressed confusion and frustration over the fact that the other was focusing on something they believed to be irrelevant, but by the end of the debate, neither IAAD nor MG knew why.">

Ok. So? The resolution has an objective meaning set by iamadragon, so mongeese's interpretations clearly aren't inherently equal.

<"Note the comment section of the debate. The RFD left by ToastofDestiny shows that he has a strong position and understood MG's argument. He read the resolution the same way MG did.">

Which simply means they misunderstood the original meaning of the "resolution" brought up by iamadragon. That's clearly no fault of his own.

<"As it stands, IAAD did not deserve the win. As Instigator and Proponent, he bore the burden of proof.">

...but mongeese responded with arguments that had nothing to do with iamadragon's, which don't necessarily refute what he said. At least not to the point where the burden of proof is met.

<"He did not demonstrate that he understood this, he simply assumed that MG's point was irrelevant and continued arguing when in reality, MG's interpretation of the resolution is correct.">

No. There's one set meaning for a "resolution; therefore, there's one correct interpretation. I'd think the person who wrote it would know what it is. So really, unless it's to the point where it's hilariously incomprehensible (ex: having the title say "crocodiles > alligators," and meaning "I like soup"), then I don't see what you're saying matters.

<"He did not demonstrate that he understood this, he simply assumed that MG's point was irrelevant and continued arguing when in reality, MG's interpretation of the resolution is correct. IAAD continued arguing without addressing the fact that the resolution was being negated by his refusal to do anything but ignore MG's points.">

That doesn't "negate" anything. At most, it takes away a foolish little "conduct vote."

<"MG actually attempted to invalidate IAAD's notions that steroids do not increase baseball statistics and the notion of a level playing field. At the end of the debate, MG was right in his closing statements.">

Yes, he did attempt, but he doesn't win, nor tie, by virtue of just trying. Kinda low standards, no?

Ah, so you say he's right, but don't back it up, eh? Alright...
Debate Round No. 3
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent and will now respond.

My opponent's last round was nothing but a series of responses saying that MG argued the wrong resolution. This is completely unjustified.

Let's break down the resolution by splitting it into three parts:

(1) A thing
(2) Should do
(3) An action

"Should", indicates the point of contention, detailing an imperative of what is to be done based on certain moral criterion.

Here is a similar example:

Resolution:
(1) Joe
(2) Should
(3) Be declared the winner of Tic-Tac-Toe according to the rules of Tic-Tac-Toe".

PRO: Joe should be declared the winner of Tic-Tac-Toe because he created three symbols in a row before his opponent did, and according to the rules, he wins. The resolution is affirmed.

CON: It is 100% true that in that particular game, if Joe is declared the winner, 5 million innocent people will die. This is a legitimate moral argument as to why Joe should NOT be declared the winner of Tic-Tac-Toe, even according to the rules. If he is declared the winner, terrible things will happen.

PRO: But, the rules say that he wins. Your point is useless.

This is exactly how the other debate went down. Please read:

(1) The statistics of those Major League Baseball players who, in the late 1990s until 2004, otherwise considered the height of the "Steroid Era" by MLB fan, were known users of PEDs or who were almost certainly using PEDs

(2) should

(3)still be held as legitimate in assessing those players' talent relative to other MLB players.

IAAD focused his argument on how steroid users don't have an unfair advantage in assessing talent relative to other ball players, and thus, those scores should BE HELD AS LEGITIMATE.

In regards to my analogy, he was proving that Joe legitimately formed three symbols in a row before his opponent, pertaining to the rules of Tic-Tac-Toe. If he won according to the rules, he should be declared the winner.

MG made a different argument. He said that if the scores were HELD AS LEGITIMATE, regardless of whether or not the scores are legitimate, then a number of morally negative implications occur. These morally negative implications override the importance of IAAD's arguments involving the mild nature of steroid use.

In regards to my analogy, MG was proving that Joe should not be declared the winner (even if he is the winner by the rules) since 5 million innocent people will die. The deaths of the millions override the integrity of Tic-Tac-Toe.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with MG's arguments. They did not violate the resolution in any way, and they were not semantics arguments. My opponent has the audacity to state that I have not proven that MG's arguments were valid when he himself has no evidence as to why they were invalid.

Now, let us examine the only important argument to IAAD's case: The minimal effect of steroids and the level playing field

IAAD argues that reported steroid users eventually sank in ranking and that the benefits of steroids don't help base-ball related muscles. He also asserts that most ballplayers used steroids while offering nothing but hearsay as evidence.

MG counters this by noting that the effects of steroids will generally help with aspects of training since they logically increase strength and endurance, as well as the baseball related muscles.

IAAD's only counter is that MG has no exact proof as to the extent of these relevant increases. However, IAAD himself has provided no proof saying that the extent is negligible. He held the burden of proof and sufficient doubt was cast on his assertion. That, and along with the fact that IAAD had no real evidence for his claim about most players using steroids, leads to a failure to meet his burden and affirm the resolution.

To conclude:

The resolution set forth by IAAD was a standard "A should B" type of resolution. His resolution is analogous to my hypothetical "Tic-Tac-Toe" resolution and could be argued from a variety of moral values.

IAAD argues that steroids have minimal effect and that everyone was using steroids, making the scores fair amongst comparison to each other. This makes the comparisons legitimate and if this is the case, then the scores should be held as legitimate.

MG argues that even if the scores are legitimate, the act of holding them as legitimate has severe moral consequences. He also offers counters to IAAD's arguments about steroids having minimal effect.

In addition, IAAD has absolutely no trustworthy source for his assertion that most players were using steroids, refused to counter MG's valid arguments about the moral repercussions, stated important points without sources, and shoved inappropriate source burden on MG.

IAAD did not deserve to win. He should have lost, but I assume that they tied. It is my opponent's burden to prove that IAAD objectively won.

Thank you.
patsox834

Con

<"This is exactly how the other debate went down.">

No, it didn't, and even if it did, that's a seemingly blatant misrepresentation of what the debate was about, so why should iamadragon be penalized?

mongeese made arguments around his interpretation, sure. We agree there completely. But you're under the impression that mongeese's interpretation was inherently equal in nature at iamadragon's, which I don't understand at all. Like I said, the "resolution" has an objective meaning; iamadragon had a clear-cut idea in his mind when he created that debate over what was the whole point. Since he's the one starting the debate, it's up to him what the point is, and mongeese's distortions and interpretations of it are irrelevant to what the actual point is.

<"These morally negative implications override the importance of IAAD's arguments involving the mild nature of steroid use.">

No, they're just completely and utterly irrelevant. To pound the point in, iamadragon had an objective meaning in mind for the debate and when he made the "resolution," and mongeese's arguments had nothing to do with what he meant. At all.

<"The deaths of the millions override the integrity of Tic-Tac-Toe.">

But moral implications have nothing to do with the rules at all, so the arguments are completely unfounded. The debate was over the rules of tic-ta-toe...not weirdly inane little moral problems that would arise because of who wins.

<"They did not violate the resolution in any way,">

They did, in that he wasn't arguing against the meaning of the "resolution," which would be his job as "con."

<"MG counters this by noting that the effects of steroids will generally help with aspects of training since they logically increase strength and endurance, as well as the baseball related muscles.">

I mean, didn't I go through that whole exchange a round or two ago? iamadragon actually sourced his claim that the muscles mongeese argued would benefit from steroids won't really do much. And, to make it stranger, mongeese asked him for proof, when iamadragon cited that in his opening round.

<"IAAD has absolutely no trustworthy source for his assertion that most players were using steroids,">

iamadragon: <"How do we know tons of players used steroids? Obviously, we don't have concrete numbers. We do, however, have player's accounts. [10] Some players have talked about the rampant steroid use in the late 1990s and early 2000s made possible by lenient drug policies, and some have suggested the idea of the level playing field. The allegations of "rampant steroid use" are what prompted the initial congressional investigations into MLB's PED problems. [11]">

So...um...yeah. He addressed this in his opening argument, as well. So really, you have nothing. mogeese's interpretation is irrelevant to the actual meaning of the "resolution," as I've talked about frequently, and your little analogy is essentially countered by that same point.
Debate Round No. 4
Kleptin

Pro

I thank my opponent for this debate and shall now conclude.

My opponent's final list of counterpoints are nothing but a rehash of assertions that he has consistently failed to substantiate throughout this entire debate.

1. My opponent begins by stating that I provided a blatant misrepresentation. I have provided a structural formula for the wording of this debate, detailing exactly what it meant. Instead of pointing out the flaw in my analogy, my opponent simply states that it is wrong, with no justification whatsoever.

2. My opponent states that MG and IAAD had differing arguments and that objectively, IAAD's interpretation took precedence. What my opponent fails to understand is that PRO's job is to uphold the burden and CON's job is to discredit PRO.

3. Although MG was arguing his interpretation of the resolution, it is still a valid interpretation. He did not have to use any semantic tricks or change any definitions in order to do so, it said what it said and I illustrated how it was valid. My opponent has said nothing to attack the core of my explanation.

I have already detailed above how IAAD's arguments were more or less self defeating, how his rebuttals towards MG's arguments on morality were little more than dismissals, how he never exactly addressed the fact that MG was arguing a resolution interpretation he did not mean, and how his sources were faulty in proving his most vital of points: That steroids don't really benefit in a way that makes a difference, and that most ballplayers were using steroids.

4. My opponent then rebuts my assertion that IAAD has no credible source simply by pasting IAAD's source. What my opponent failed to understand is that I was attacking the credibility of his single provided source on the rampant use of steroids, not the existence of it.

All he has is hearsay, in other words, the accounts of others. He has provided no data, no statistics. He has no definition of the word "rampant", which could mean 10 or 100 or 100. He has provided *nothing*, and this is the most important point in his resolution. Even if he were debating against a brick wall with this point, he should not win, as he has absolutely no credibility in his statements. Without that point, he can't win the debate as he completely fails to uphold his burden.

***FURTHER CLARIFICATION***

MG and IAAD's resolution takes the form of "A should do B". Whenever we have such a resolution, it dictates some sort of moral accountability. WHY should we do this? Why should we NOT do this?

The resolution can be broken down simply to whether or not we should hold something as legitimate.

My opponent states that moral implications have nothing to do with the rules. That's true. However, if my opponent looked more carefully, he would see that the core of the resolution is the word "should". This indicates that the debate is inherently about whether or not an act SHOULD be done in accordance to some moral code.

IAAD chose to use, as his moral ruler, how well one can still compare one player to another. He says that the comparisons are still legitimate because steroids don't affect baseball skill much, and because everyone was using them.

MG chose to use, as his moral ruler, the societal repercussions of holding those scores as legitimate. He mentions that doing so would promote dishonesty, punish integrity, and tarnish baseball.

IAAD is dismissing MG's arguments based on his own moral ruler.

As another analogy to explain this, The resolution would be "Jews should be placed into concentration camps". IAAD would argue that they should, because they are a great manual labor force. MG would be arguing that doing so, violates natural rights. IAAD would then dismiss MG's arguments because they have nothing to do with how great a labor force the Jews would be.

Is this a valid dismissal? No. And that is exactly what my opponent is supporting.

CONCLUSION:

My opponent makes a bad habit of stating that he disagrees and not bothering to explain why. My analysis still stands, as I have broken down the resolution into a clear-cut way and explained in great detail why MG's interpretation is right. My opponent has done nothing but boldly deny this, without any structured argument in return.

Throughout this entire debate, my opponent makes the same mistake that IAAD made: Both forget that they are PRO, but argue as if though they are CON. Both argue under an incorrect assumption that was corrected by their opponent. Both have argued blindly with nothing but baseless repetitions, dismissing their opponent's rebuttals. Both have dedicated their debates to incorrectly rebutting their opponent and not establishing their case.

My opponent has not met his burden, I have shown that MG and IAAD's debate is a tie, if not a win for MG.

Thank you.
patsox834

Con

"My opponent's final list of counterpoints are nothing but a rehash of assertions that he has consistently failed to substantiate throughout this entire debate."

Um, you're simply not making sense here. Dude, I responded similarly because you're the one who took what you previously said, changed the wording, and added an analogy. Just because you make it look nicer and longer doesn't mean it's any more sensible. So the one who initiated rehashing sh-t around here clearly wasn't me.

Firstly, you're arguing about interpretation of the resolution. I responded. The "crux" of what I said was "There's one set meaning for a "resolution"; therefore, there's one correct interpretation," which you still haven't responded to, so that point stands, and that, really, is all I need for that little point of yours to be meaningless.

You picked up for mongeese's morality arguments, but those arguments had nothing to do with the meaning of the resolution iamadragon had in mind, which is the point of the whole debate. And yet, you're trying to penalize iamadragon for that? mogeese, if anyone, should be "penalized" for not comprehending the true meaning of iamadragon's "resolution." It's like you're blaming iamadragon for mogeese missing his point. Nonsensical.

I don't see how I've failed to "substantiate" anything. You haven't even put up anything against my "refutations," you only used the same argument over again, while completely ignoring what I said. I've given my reasons as to why your arguments lame, and summarized them above.

Your analogy was redundant; the point of it is the same stuff you were previously saying, and that I rebutted. I also refuted your analogy to go along with the other stuff, too, though, and you've said nothing.

"Instead of pointing out the flaw in my analogy, my opponent simply states that it is wrong, with no justification whatsoever."

Yes, I did justify it. Here: "mongeese made arguments around his interpretation, sure. We agree there completely. But you're under the impression that mongeese's interpretation was inherently equal in nature at iamadragon's, which I don't understand at all. Like I said, the "resolution" has an objective meaning; iamadragon had a clear-cut idea in his mind when he created that debate over what was the whole point. Since he's the one starting the debate, it's up to him what the point is, and mongeese's distortions and interpretations of it are irrelevant to what the actual point is."

"What my opponent fails to understand is that PRO's job is to uphold the burden and CON's job is to discredit PRO."

How does this refute what I said? Plus, how can con discredit pro when pro's arguments aren't necessarily refuted by what con said..?

If an argument starts up over statistics in baseball, and someone days "these are good stats relative to these," and someone says "but he did it immorally!" how does that change that player's statistics relative to the other players? His accomplishments are independent of morality; math and morals are pretty distinctly different fields.

"Although MG was arguing his interpretation of the resolution, it is still a valid interpretation. He did not have to use any semantic tricks or change any definitions in order to do so, it said what it said and I illustrated how it was valid. My opponent has said nothing to attack the core of my explanation."

Most of my argument has "attacked" that point. You've just said that over again after I made the "objective resolution" arguments, which are talked about above.

"My opponent then rebuts my assertion that IAAD has no credible source simply by pasting IAAD's source. What my opponent failed to understand is that I was attacking the credibility of his single provided source on the rampant use of steroids, not the existence of it."

You simply called the source "untrustworthy," and gave no rationale. The only onus is on you for actually saying that. You make a claim, then back it up. Why isn't it trustworthy? You haven't told me why yet; you've just mentioned it "in passing."

"My opponent states that moral implications have nothing to do with the rules. That's true."

And that's really all that needs to be said here.

"This indicates that the debate is inherently about whether or not an act SHOULD be done in accordance to some moral code."

No, in the context of the resolution, it means that stats of player a = stats of player b if player a did steroids, and all else is equal. That's all. The "in assessing those players' talent relative to other MLB players" bit kinda makes that obvious.

You've repeated yourself constantly and haven't addressed my refutations to those points, which I've been over...despite saying you did, which is odd, but meh....
Debate Round No. 5
23 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Sigh, I'm actually kinda surprised by the idiocy of mongeese and mongoose. I really shouldn't be, though.
Posted by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Conduct: PRO. CON violated the rules of this debate and got an extra round unfairly, despite the clear instructions that he was to forfeit his last round.

S&G: Tied, no big differences.

Arguments: PRO clearly made the better arguments. The final round for CON is not taken into account because it is an illegal round. The other rounds that CON posted in were nothing more than perpetual assertions of the same thing with no new arguments added. As PRO actually stated in the debate, CON made the same mistake IAAD did: He forgot that he was actually arguing the pro position and never upheld the burden, and significant doubt was cast on his position.

Sources: PRO. Although PRO asked CON whether or not sources would be along with the argument score, he never answered. Despite this, I gave PRO the sources point because there could only be one source in this debate, and PRO used the source more efficiently.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
RFD:
B/A: PRO
Conduct: PRO, CON was rude repeatedly.
S/G: TIED
Arguments/Sources: PRO, CON did nothing but claim that the resolution was objective, while PRO made an argument that it could be subjective with no refutations from CON.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
B/A: PRO
Conduct: PRO
"A lot of the crap he spewed in that debate..."
"My opponent will not post in his last round and will instead thank the audience and myself for the debate."
Spelling/Grammar: TIED
Arguments/Sources: PRO
patsox made the same mistakes as IAAD by assuming that a resolution could only be affirmed in one way, completely ignoring Kleptin's key points.
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
"If I am CON, I will respond with only my choice and invite my opponent to begin. Debating will begin with my opponent in R2 and will end in R5. My opponent will not post in his last round and will instead thank the audience and myself for the debate."
Now I know why it took 60 hours.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
Because it's only an online debate...?
Posted by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
You do. We're just speculating as to why it's taken 60 hours.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
...and here I thought I had almost 12 hours left to post something.
Posted by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
I do believe that pastox thinks that he isn't supposed to post anything at all this round, and with thus forfeit.
Posted by patsox834 7 years ago
patsox834
"Thanking" them would be insincere, and therefore utterly meaningless.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Kleptinpatsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Krazzy_Player 3 years ago
Krazzy_Player
Kleptinpatsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Madoki 6 years ago
Madoki
Kleptinpatsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 7 years ago
Kleptin
Kleptinpatsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by mongoose 7 years ago
mongoose
Kleptinpatsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by mongeese 7 years ago
mongeese
Kleptinpatsox834Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60